When you read that a treatment "works," the first questions should be: in how many people, compared with what, and for how long? This article answers those questions for tennis elbow and golfer's elbow embolization as honestly as we can, using the studies that have actually been published as of October 2026.
The key studies at a glance
| Study | Patients | Design | Main result | Longest follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iwamoto et al., 2017 (Japan) | 24 with tennis elbow | Prospective, no control group | QuickDASH 50.8 to 2.7 | 2 years (22 patients) |
| Okuno and Shibuya, 2019 meeting abstract (Japan) | About 50 with tennis elbow | Prospective, no control group, not a full paper | QuickDASH 52.1 to 3.7 | 2 years |
| Hwang et al., 2018 (Korea) | 13 (15 treated areas: 7 tennis elbows, 8 shoulders) | Retrospective, no control group | 73% clinical success | 4 months |
| Lee et al., 2022 (Korea) | 10 with golfer's elbow (14 procedures) | Retrospective, no control group | 85.7% clinical success | 6 to 12 months |
QuickDASH is a 0 to 100 questionnaire about arm, shoulder and hand function. Lower is better, so a drop from about 50 to under 5 means people reported going from moderate disability to very little.
Tennis elbow: what the numbers mean
The 2017 pilot study
This is the most complete peer-reviewed paper on tennis elbow embolization. Researchers in Tokyo treated 24 people whose symptoms had lasted more than six months (17 months on average) despite at least three months of standard care. Every patient had abnormal blood vessels on imaging. Average QuickDASH scores went from 50.8 before treatment to 23.4 at one month, 8.3 at three months, 5.3 at six months and 2.7 at two years. Pain scores, a tennis-elbow-specific questionnaire, and pain-free grip strength all improved as well.
Two points are easy to miss. First, 2 of the 24 patients were lost to follow-up, so the two-year numbers reflect 22 people. Second, according to a 2022 systematic review describing this study, about 36% of patients had a second embolization after six months. The final scores therefore include the effect of repeat treatment in roughly a third of people.
The larger follow-up report
The same group presented results from about 50 patients at the Society of Interventional Radiology meeting in 2019, with average QuickDASH falling from 52.1 to 3.7 at two years. This was a conference abstract, which is reviewed less thoroughly than a full journal article, and news reports gave slightly different patient counts.
The Korean shoulder and elbow study
A 2018 study from Seoul treated 15 painful shoulders and elbows. Eleven (73%) met the definition of clinical success at four months. Notably, results were better when the X-ray dye image showed a clear blush of abnormal vessels: 9 of 10 improved, versus 3 of 5 without one.
Golfer's elbow: thinner evidence
The main golfer's elbow study, published in 2022, looked back at 10 patients who had 14 procedures. Success was defined as at least a 70% drop in QuickDASH at six months, and 12 of 14 procedures (85.7%) met that bar. Average pain fell from 7.6 to 0.9 out of 10 at six months. Improvement lasted up to 12 months in nine patients. That is promising, but it is a single small study. Read more on our golfer's elbow embolization page.
Questions about your treatment options? Dr. Fox can help.
Book a ConsultationThis article is part of our Embolization Guide.
How long do results last?
Based on what has been published:
- For tennis elbow, improvement was maintained at two years in the 2017 pilot, and MRI at two years showed improved tendon appearance.
- For golfer's elbow, improvement lasted up to 12 months in nine of the patients studied.
- No elbow study has reported results beyond two years.
Because about a third of patients in the pilot study had a repeat procedure, "lasting results" in that study sometimes meant results after two treatments. It is fair to plan for that possibility. For context, a population study from Minnesota found tennis elbow came back within two years in 8.5% of people overall, regardless of treatment.
Why these results need careful interpretation
This is the most important section of this article.
Tennis elbow often improves on its own. A 2022 meta-analysis looked at people in 24 randomized trials who received a placebo or no treatment. About 89% reported being much better or recovered at one year, and the chance of improving did not depend on how long they had already had symptoms.
None of the embolization studies had a comparison group. Without one, we cannot tell how much of the improvement came from the procedure, from time, from the placebo effect, or from the exercise and rest people did afterward. Systematic reviews in 2022 and 2023 both concluded that randomized controlled trials are needed. A 2024 meta-analysis of tendon embolization in general (5 studies, 74 patients) found substantial short-term pain reductions but had the same limitation.
Most of the data come from one research group. Results from a pioneering center may not match what happens elsewhere.
On the other side, the patients in these studies had already failed months of treatment, and the improvements were large and steady. Those are reasons for cautious optimism, not certainty.
Research that is underway
As of October 2026, we found no randomized or sham-controlled trial of elbow embolization in the published literature. Two registered studies are relevant:
- UCLA (NCT05325242): a single-group U.S. study of elbow artery embolization with 75-micron microspheres, conducted under an FDA investigational device exemption. Its main goal is the percentage of patients with more than a 50% improvement in QuickDASH at 12 months. Estimated completion is the end of 2027.
- Chung-Ang University, Korea (NCT06523114): a 12-patient single-group study of tennis elbow and plantar fasciitis, completed in September 2025. Results had not been posted when we checked.
Knee embolization, by contrast, has been tested against sham procedures in randomized trials, according to a 2025 expert review. That is the standard elbow embolization has not yet reached.
Questions to ask about any success rate
Whether you are reading about embolization, PRP, shockwave or surgery, these questions help you judge the numbers:
- How many people were studied? Results from 10 or 20 patients can shift a lot with one more study.
- Was there a comparison group? Ideally a placebo or sham group, since tennis elbow often improves on its own.
- How was "success" defined? A 50% drop in pain and a 70% drop in disability are very different bars.
- How many people dropped out? Missing patients can make results look better than they were.
- Who ran the study? Early results from the center that developed a technique are valuable but need to be confirmed elsewhere.
Dr. Fox is happy to go through these questions with you for any option you are considering.
What this means for you
If your elbow pain has lasted many months despite good care, the early research suggests embolization is worth discussing. Just go in with realistic expectations: it may help a lot, it may help partly, it may need repeating, and the evidence is still developing. Weigh it against the other options in our main tennis elbow embolization guide, review the risks and side effects, and see how timing works in the recovery timeline. For other joints, our embolization guide compares the evidence across procedures.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the success rate of tennis elbow embolization?
In small studies, most patients improved substantially. A 2018 study reported 73% clinical success at four months, and a 2017 study showed average disability scores falling from 50.8 to 2.7 at two years. There are no randomized trials yet.
How long does tennis elbow embolization last?
In the longest study, improvement held at two years. About 36% of those patients had a second procedure after six months. No elbow data beyond two years have been published.
Has elbow embolization been tested against a placebo?
Not yet. As of October 2026 no randomized or sham-controlled elbow trial has been published. Knee embolization has been tested this way.
Is the evidence better for tennis elbow or golfer's elbow?
Tennis elbow has somewhat more evidence. Golfer's elbow relies mainly on a single study of 10 patients.
Keep Reading
- Tennis Elbow Embolization in Manhattan
- Tennis Elbow Embolization Risks and Side Effects
- Tennis Elbow Embolization vs. Cortisone and PRP Injections
- Tennis Elbow Embolization vs. Physical Therapy and Bracing
- Tennis Elbow Embolization vs. Surgery: How They Compare
- Elbow Embolization for Athletes and Manual Workers
- Embolization Guide: knee, heel, shoulder, elbow and hip
Sources
- Iwamoto et al., Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 2017 — embolization for lateral epicondylitis, 2-year pilot study (24 patients)
- Okuno & Shibuya, Society of Interventional Radiology 2019 meeting abstract — midterm results of embolization for tennis elbow (EVToday report)
- AuntMinnie, 2019 — SIR report: interventional tennis elbow treatment reduces pain (procedure description)
- Hwang et al., Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2018 — embolization for shoulder or elbow tendinopathy
- Lee et al., CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, 2022 — embolization for chronic medial epicondylitis (10 patients)
- Kishore et al., ACR Open Rheumatology, 2022 — systematic review of embolization for chronic musculoskeletal pain
- Aly et al., Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 2023 — systematic review of embolization for shoulder and elbow pain
- Epelboym et al., Skeletal Radiology, 2024 — systematic review and meta-analysis of tendinopathy embolization
- Ikonen et al., Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2022 — course of untreated tennis elbow, systematic review and meta-analysis
- Sanders et al., American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2015 — epidemiology and health care burden of tennis elbow
- ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05325242 — Elbow Artery Embolization for Lateral Epicondylitis (UCLA)
- CMS — IDE study G210372 (NCT05325242), elbow artery embolization for lateral epicondylitis
- ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06523114 — embolization for elbow and foot plantar pain (Chung-Ang University)
- Sajan et al., American Journal of Roentgenology, 2025 — expert panel review of embolization for musculoskeletal pain
Medically reviewed by David Fox, MD, FACS, RPVI. This article is general information, not a substitute for a medical evaluation.
Living with joint or tendon pain that hasn’t improved? Schedule a consultation with Dr. David Fox at Fox Vein & Vascular in Manhattan to find out whether embolization is right for you. Call (212) 362-3470 or request an appointment online.
